Citi Analyst: No Market Rationale for U.S. Crude Exports

There’s no market rationale for U.S. producers to export crude oil, now that the Atlantic basin is glutted with supply and the differential between U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and European marker Brent has narrowed. In fact, more oil sent into the Atlantic market would further weaken prices, for both Brent and WTI, undermining the purpose behind lobbying for a lifting of the ban on exports, said Seth Kleinman, the Global Head of Energy Strategy at Citi Group, on Tuesday at the 2015 Winter Energy Outlook Conference in Washington, DC.

Those seeking repeal of the export ban “should be careful what they wish for,” given that volumes shipped from the U.S. would “just kick more into the Atlantic basin” and hurt prices.

Those seeking repeal of the export ban “should be careful what they wish for,” given that volumes shipped from the U.S. would “just kick more into the Atlantic basin” and hurt prices. “Exports get you nothing,” Kleinman said. He added that on a free-trade ideological basis, the ban should be lifted, but market dynamics have shifted dramatically since the debate over nixing the 40-year-old law began several years ago.

Brent’s massive premium to WTI throughout 2011-14 drove the debate over crude exports, but now the spread has narrowed to about $3 and has held steady for some time. High stock levels at Cushing, Oklahoma, the delivery point for WTI, were the main reason for the blowout between the benchmarks, but new pipelines have connected the hub to major refining centers, keeping crude there from being “land-locked,” or less accessible. Against this backdrop, the sharp divergence between the two markers may be a thing of the past.

The House of Representatives is set to vote on nixing the ban this month, and it’s expected to pass. But it won’t likely become law: There are a lot of hurdles in the Senate and President Barack Obama would veto a bill allowing the liberalization of U.S. crude exports.

Shale caps oil prices on the upside

Although shale oil production in the U.S. is hurting from the lower oil price, albeit not as badly as originally expected, output can return at a faster pace than it was turned off. If the market tightens and prices rise, shale can essentially ramp back up and meet any shortfalls, putting a cap on prices in the $60-$80 range.

If the market tightens and prices rise, shale can essentially ramp back up and meet any shortfalls, putting a cap on prices.

The market is “basically rangebound,” said Kleinman, adding that “you can’t get properly bullish on oil” given current market fundamentals and the ability of shale to rebound when prices recover.

The rebalancing effort is taking longer than expected for three key reasons. First, non-OPEC supply has not been materially affected by lower prices. Russia recently boasted record volumes in the post-Soviet era, Petrobras will increase output despite being enveloped in a scandal, and North Sea producers plan to see an increase this year. In the U.S., limited access to capital may drive out smaller, weaker producers, but won’t take a material amount of volumes offline and “solve the overhang.”

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, released Tuesday, estimates that total U.S. crude oil production declined by .12 mbd in September compared with the previous month. The government agency sees output decreasing through mid-2016 before it starts growing again toward the end of the year.

Second, demand growth so far has not been strong enough to tighten the global market as lower prices do not necessarily stimulate demand. Oil exporters have been “massive drivers” of oil demand growth over the past 10-15 years, but lower revenues have dented their GDP growth. This, in turn, has weakened oil demand growth in certain markets.

Too much oil is “being jammed into an extremely congested market” in Asia.

Third, major producers are all fighting for outlets for their crude only in the Asia-Pacific region, and it will get tougher next year when more Iranian volumes hit the market once sanctions are lifted. Kleinman noted that OPEC output will keep growing, and despite talk of Russia cutting output to help shore up prices, it won’t. Saudi Arabia could reevalute its strategy in order to support prices to help with its fiscal shortfalls, but he sees that as the wrong approach. If the Saudis pull back, they would weaken their position in Asia while also stimulating supply in North America. Too much oil is “being jammed into an extremely congested market” in Asia, Kleinman said.

Geopolitical risk, still a threat to oil markets

If the situation shifts on the supply side, the danger of a price spike from geopolitical risk reemerges as the global oil market has very limited spare capacity.

While physical fundamentals are no doubt weak right now and will take some time to tighten, geopolitical risk provides a bullish undercurrent for oil prices. There are a host of menacing threats, particularly in the Middle East, where producers such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya are all under stress. Russia, meanwhile, is being antagonistic with its bombing campaign in Syria and is also dealing with fallout in its own economy from Western sanctions and low oil prices.

Geopolitical dangers are not impacting the oil price now because of the massive supply overhang and high inventory levels. If the situation shifts on the supply side, the danger of a price spike from geopolitical risk reemerges as the global oil market has very limited spare capacity, which is all concentrated in Saudi Arabia and makes up only 2 percent of global demand.

With low spare capacity part of the new market paradigm, Kleinman says the oil industry should now look at commercial inventories and strategic stockpiles as a security buffer when geopolitical tensions are high. Stocks provide a “new alternative” to what OPEC carried in spare capacity, Kleinman said, arguing that downsizing the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), an idea now being floated in Congress, is not a constructive plan.

Major oil producing countries, & wealthy individuals in certain petrostates, have injected billions of dollars into international soccer, and their reach is spreading in an attempt to promote their “soft power.”

Despite the backlash from Bitcoin’s collapse in value, a group led by a former CFTC commissioner is set to launch an oil-backed cryptocurrency called OilCoin. Here's why its investors will run into a number of risks.

Midstream bottlenecks in Canada and output declines in Latin American producers are reshaping the heavy crude market in the Western Hemisphere. Who are the winners and losers from the changes in fundamentals?

Oil prices are rising and US production is growing sharply, but the shale sector is still not turning a profit. Companies have had to raise about $500 billion in bond sales since 2010 and they have spent $280 billion more than they have generated in the past decade.

If more large upstream projects are not sanctioned in the next 12-24 months, oil prices will likely again approach $100 per barrel. Underinvestment and continued geopolitical risk suggest that oil markets are heading into another 'decade of disorder.'

Stay Informed

Subscribe to our newsletter today!

The Fuse is an energy news and analysis site supported by Securing America’s Future Energy. The views expressed here are those of individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the organization.

Issues in Focus

Safety Standards for Crude-By-Rail Shipments

A series of accidents in North America in recent years have raised concerns regarding rail shipments of crude oil. Fatal accidents in Lynchburg, Virginia, Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Fayette County, West Virginia, and (most recently) Culbertson, Montana have prompted public outcry and regulatory scrutiny.

2014 saw an all-time record of 144 oil train incidents in the U.S.—up from just one in 2009—causing a total of more than $7 million in damage.

The spate of crude-by-rail accidents has emerged from the confluence of three factors. First is the massive increase in oil movements by rail, which has increased more than three-fold since 2010. Second is the inadequate safety features of DOT-111 cars, particularly those constructed prior to 2011, which account for roughly 70 percent of tank cars on U.S. railroads. Third is the high volatility of oil produced from the Bakken and other shale formations, which makes this crude more prone towards combustion.

Of these three, rail car safety standards is the factor over which regulators can exert the most control. After months of regulatory review, on May 1, 2015, the White House and the Department of Transportation unveiled the new safety standards. The announcement also coincided with new tank car standards in Canada—a critical move, since many crude by rail shipments cross the U.S.-Canadian border. In the words DOT, the new rule:

Since the rule was announced, Republicans in Congress sought to roll back the provision calling for an advanced breaking system, following concerns from the rail industry that such an upgrade would be unnecessary and could cost billions of dollars. The advanced braking systems are required to be in place by 2021.

Democrats in Congress have argued that the new rules are insufficient to mitigate the danger. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) both issued statements arguing that the rules were insufficient and the timelines for safety improvements were too long.

The current industry standard car, the CPC-1232, came into usage in October 2011. These cars have half inch thick shells (marginally thicker than the DOT-111 7/16 inch shells) and advanced valves that are more resilient in the event of an accident. However, these newer cars were involved in the derailments and explosions in Virginia and West Virginia within the past year, raising questions about the validity of replacing only the DOT-111s manufactured before 2011.

Before the rule was finalized, early reports indicated that the rule submitted to the White House by the Department of Transportation has proposed a two-stage phase-out of the current fleet of railcars, focusing first on the pre-2011 cars, then the current standard CPC-1232 cars. In the final rule, DOT mandated a more aggressive timeline for retrofitting the CPC-1232 cars, imposing a deadline of April 1, 2020 for non-jacketed cars.

Oops!

We weren't able to sign you up for our newsletter.Please check your email address and try again.

DataSpotlight

The recent oil production boom in the United States, while astounding, has created a misleading narrative that the United States is no longer dependent on oil imports. Reports of surging domestic production, calls for relaxation of the crude oil export ban, labels of “Saudi America,” and the recent collapse in oil prices have created a perception that the United States has more oil than it knows what to do with.

This view is misguided. While some forecasts project that the United States could become a self-sufficient oil producer within the next decade, this remains a distant prospect. According to the April 2015 Short Term Energy Outlook, total U.S. crude oil production averaged an estimated 9.3 million barrels per day in March, while total oil demand in the country is over 19 million barrels per day.

This graphic helps illustrate the regional variations in crude oil supply and demand. North America, Europe, and Asia all run significant production deficits, with the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Former Soviet Union are global engines of crude oil supply.